JUDGMENT 1. 1. These seven writ petitions are directed against the order dated 14th July, 1988 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to the as 'the Tribunal'), whereby seven appeals the respondents in these writ petitions were allowed. Since these writ petitions raise common questions for consideration, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The respondents in these writ petitions were initially appointed on the post of Inspector (Audit) Grade II in the Co-operative Department of the Govt. of Rajasthan after being selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. After such appointment they were confirmed on the post of 'Inspector (Audit) Grade II and subsequently on the basis of the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.) they were permitted on the post of Inspector (Audit) Grade I. It appears that by order dated 25th October, 1986 the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rajasthan, proposed to change the date of confirmation of the respondents on the post of Inspector (Audit) Gr. 11 from 28th October, 1963 to 16th August, 1967, and invited objections to the same. The respondents filed their objections to the same. Thereafter the order dated 14th April, 1987 was passed whereby the date of confirmation of the respondents on the post of Inspector (Audit) Gr. II was changed from 28th October. 1961 to 16th August. 1967. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 14th April, 1987 the respondents filed appeals Nos. 276/87, 283/87 to 297/87 & 289/87 before the Tribunal. All these appeals were heard together by the Tribunal and by order dated 14th July, 1985 the said appeals were allowed and the order dated Will April, 1987 issued by the Registrar,Co-operative Societies, Rajasthan, was quashed and it has been directed that the seniority of the respondent, herein in the post of Inspector Grade II shall be determined on the basis of their respective date of confirmation assigned to them before passing of the impugned order. Before the Tribunal the petitioner herein sought to justify the change in the date of confirmation of the respondents on the basis of the decision of this Court in Baney Singh v. The State of Rajasthan & ors., 1980 WLN (UC) 481 . The Tribunal has, however. Before the Tribunal the petitioner herein sought to justify the change in the date of confirmation of the respondents on the basis of the decision of this Court in Baney Singh v. The State of Rajasthan & ors., 1980 WLN (UC) 481 . The Tribunal has, however. held that the said decision of this Court only gave a direction with regard to preparation of a common seniority list of Inspectors Grade II but the said decision does not give any direction with regard to change of the date of confirmation on the post of Inspector (Audit) Gr. II. The Tribunal observed that under the Rajasthan State Subordinate Co-operative Services (Clause -1) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules') the post of Inspector (Audit) Gr. II & Inspector Gr. II (Executive) belong to distinct classes and the number of posts in each class, viz. Inspector Gr. II (Executive) & Inspector Gr.II (Audit) have also ben separately specified, and that it is an admitted position that the requirement to the post of Inspector Gr. II (Executive) and Inspector Gr. II (Audit) have been made separately in respect of each class from time to time. The Tribunal rejected the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner herein that a person appointed on the post of Inspector or If (Executive) is entitled to be confirmed on the the post of Inspector Gr. II (Audit) since he has joined the service earlier on the poet of Inspector Grade II and, therefore he should be confirmed earlier even though no permanent vacancy is available to this particular class of posts. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, the petitioner viz. State of Rajasthan, has filed these writ petitions. 3. We have heard the learned Addl. Government Advocate in support of the writ petitions and Shri M.M Ranjan, the learned counsel for the respondents in all the writ petitions. We have also carefully perused the order passed by the Tribunal as well as decision of this Court in Baney Singh v. The State of Rajasthan & ors. 4. In Baney Singh v. The State of Rajasthan & ors., this Court has held that since there is one common cadre of Inspector Gr. II in the Cooperative Department and there may be one common seniority list of all of them and that the date of appointment of the petitioner in that case as Inspector Gr. 4. In Baney Singh v. The State of Rajasthan & ors., this Court has held that since there is one common cadre of Inspector Gr. II in the Cooperative Department and there may be one common seniority list of all of them and that the date of appointment of the petitioner in that case as Inspector Gr. II (Executive) would be the date when he joined the training school and in other cases when the incumbent joined the Department after selection by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. This Court therefore quashed the separate seniority lists of Inspectors Gr. II (Executive) and Inspector Gr. II (Audit) which had been prepared and directed that a common seniority list of Inspector Gr. II be prepared in accordance with the date of their substantive appointment as Co-operative Inspector Gr. II. 5. Having considered the aforesaid decision of this Court in Baney Singh v. The State of Rajasthan & ors. , we find ourselves in agreement with the Tribunal that there is nothing in the said decision which would justify altering the date of confirmation of the respondents on the post of Inspector Gr. II (Audit). Thus the justification that has been put forward by the State (petitioner herein) to alter the date of confirmation of the respondents to the post of Inspector Gr. II (Audit) cannot be upheld. In this connection it may also be mentioned that the Tribunal in an earlier order dated 22nd July, 1986 in Appeals Nos. 295/85 and 308/85 had considered the correctness of the order whereby the dates of confirmation of the appellants in those cases on the post of inspector Gr I were being changed and one of the reasons that was put forward by the State Government to justify the said change was the decision of this Court in Baney Singh v. The State of Rajasthan & ors. . The Tribunal by its order dated 22nd July, 1986, did not accept the said contention urged on behalf of the State Government and held that the decision in Baney Singh v. The State of Rajasthan & ors. , could not justify the alteration of the date of confirmation. The said decision of the Tribunal has been affirmed by this Court in D.B.C.W. No. 2000/1987 decided on 27th August 1987. State of Rajasthan v. Kailash Chand Shringi & ors. , could not justify the alteration of the date of confirmation. The said decision of the Tribunal has been affirmed by this Court in D.B.C.W. No. 2000/1987 decided on 27th August 1987. State of Rajasthan v. Kailash Chand Shringi & ors. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we were satisfied that no ground is made out for interference with the order passed by the Tribunal holding that the petitioner herein was not justified in changing the date of confirmation of the respondents on the post of Inspector Gr. II (Audit) from 28th October, 1963 to 16th August, 1967. 6. In the last sentence of its order dated 14th July, 1988 the Tribunal has directed that the seniority of the respondents on the post of Inspector Gr. II shall be determined on the basis of their respective dates of confirmation assigned to them before the passing of the impugned order(dated 14th April, 1987). The learned Addl. Government Advocate has submitted that the question of fixation of seniority was not in issue in the appeals that were filed by the respondents before the Tribunal and the only question which came up for consideration before the Tribunal in those cases was with regard to change in the date of confirmation of the respondents on the post of inspector Gr. II (Audit). The learned Addl. Government Advocate has also invited our attention to the direction given in Baney Singh's case (I) wherein it has been directed that common seniority list of Inspectors Gr. I should be prepared in accordance with the date of substantive appointment as Co-operative Inspector Gr. I. Shri Ranjan, the learned counsel for the respondents has contended that earlier under rule 31 of the Rules the seniority was to be determined on the basis of the date of substantive appointment but now the said rule has been changed and seniority has to be determined on the basis of the date of confirmation and, therefore, the direction given by the Tribunal is correct and it does not require interference by this Court. We however, find that the question of seniority was not in issue before the Tribunal in the appeals of the respondents and the said question has also not been gone into by the Tribunal in its order. We however, find that the question of seniority was not in issue before the Tribunal in the appeals of the respondents and the said question has also not been gone into by the Tribunal in its order. The direction that has been given by the Tribunal with regard to determination of seniority on the basis of respective dates of confirmation cannot, therefore, be upheld and the said question as to determination of seniority must be left to be determined by the concerned authority in accordance with the Rules. 7. The writ petitions are, therefore, disposed of with this direction that the order dated 17th July, 1988 passed by the Tribunal is upheld but the direction given by the Tribunal in the said order that the seniority of the respondents herein on the post of Inspector Gr. II shall be determined on the basis of their respective date of confirmation assigned to them before the passing of the impugned order is set aside and it is left to the concerned authority to determine the seniority on the post of Inspector Gr. II in accordance with the relevant Rules. No order as to costs.Petition disposed of. *******